Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Ken Blackwell the former Secretary of State of Ohio wrote an article for National Review entitled An ACORN Falls from the Tree. He addresses why ACORN is now garnering attention, as it was to be a recipient of 'Housing Trust Fund' money earmarked by Democrats in the first version of the economic bill. He goes on to note his own experiences with this radical organization.

As the weekend progressed, reports were constantly emerging of the sticking points preventing a final agreement. One of these reputed points of contention was whether 20 percent of the profit proceedings for asset sales in the future would go to what is called the Housing Trust Fund, subsidizing certain groups for ostensibly nonpartisan activity. One of these groups that this trust supports is ACORN.

ACORN has often been in the news since 2004. Officially, they work to register voters and support housing. In reality, everyone in public life knows that they are hardcore supporters for the Democratic Party, and employ bare-knuckle tactics. Their organization is plagued by repeated investigations of voter fraud and other crimes.

In Ohio, where as secretary of state I oversaw elections for eight years, ACORN has been busy. One ACORN man in Reynoldsburg was indicted on two felony counts of voter fraud, and another was indicted in Columbus. Other such problems surfaced in Cuyahoga County, where criminal investigations are ongoing.

The New York Post notes in their article The Meltdown's Acorn that Obama is directly connected to ACORN and he said so himself as recently as last November.

"I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career," he [Obama] told the group last November.

Indeed, in the early '90s, Obama was recruited by Talbott herself to run training sessions for ACORN activists.

ACORN also got funding from two charities, the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation, when Obama served on their boards, and from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge - the radical "education reform" outfit Obama ran from '95 to '99.

Ironically, the group stood to be a key beneficiary of the goodies Democrats were loading into Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's rescue plan - including one demand that 20 percent of any profits the feds make from reselling mortgage securities go to fund groups like ACORN.

Stanley Kurtz of National Review article Inside Obama's Acorn details the aggressive methods of intimidation used by ACORN, as well as a shrewd tactical strategy that has kept them below the radar nationally. Thus ACORN's radicalism and often illegal behavior garners much less attention than groups like MoveOn or Code Pink who seek the spotlight and in many ways are less radical. Kurtz refers to Sol Stern's explanation of ACORN and a reply to his explanation by John Atlas and Peter Dreier.

Do Atlas and Dreier dismiss Stern’s catalogue of Acorn’s disruptive and intentionally intimidating tactics as a set of regrettable exceptions to Acorn’s rule of civility? Not a chance. Atlas and Dreier are at pains to point out that intimidation works. They proudly reel off the increased memberships that follow in the wake of high-profile disruptions, and clearly imply that the same public officials who object most vociferously to intimidation are the ones most likely to cave as a result. What really upsets Atlas and Dreier is that Stern misses the subtle national hand directing Acorn’s various local campaigns. This is radicalism unashamed.

But don’t let the disruptive tactics fool you. Acorn is a savvy and exceedingly effective political player. Stern says that Acorn’s key post–New Left innovation is its determination to take over the system from within, rather than futilely try to overthrow it from without. Stern calls this strategy a political version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Take Atlas and Dreier at their word: Acorn has an openly aggressive and intimidating side, but a sophisticated inside game, as well. Chicago’s Acorn leader, for example, won a seat on the Board of Aldermen as the candidate of a leftist “New Party.”

Monday, September 29, 2008

ABC News looked into the controversy about whether the family of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek approved of Senator Obama wearing a bracelet with his name on it and whether they approved of him using his name publicly in the article Bracelet Wars. It appears there was some miscommunication between Jopek's parents who are divorced, but that his mother is happy with Senator Obama mentioning her son's name during the debate even though she had previously emailed the campaign and asked them not to talk about her son publicly. Her intent in giving Senator Obama the bracelet was so that he would know her son's name, which brings us back to the original problem. Senator Obama had to read Sergeant Jopek's name off his bracelet.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

NewsBusters is reporting in their article Family Told Obama NOT To Wear Soldier Son's Bracelet... Where is Media? that the family of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek whose name is on the bracelet Senator Obama wears does not want him speaking about their son in public. The father Brian Jopek stated in a radio interview that the family even asked Senator Obama to stop wearing his son's bracelet.

Radio host Glenn Moberg of the show "Route 51" asked Mr. Jopek, a man who believes in the efforts in Iraq and is not in favor of Obama's positions on the war, what he and his ex-wife think of Obama continually using their son's name on the campaign trail.

Jopek began by saying that his ex-wife was taken aback, even upset, that Obama has made the death of her son a campaign issue. Jopek says his wife gave Obama the bracelet because "she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan's name." Jopek went on to say that "she wasn't looking to turn it into a big media event" and "just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself." Apparently, they were all shocked it became such a big deal.

Senator Obama's inability to even remember Sergeant Jopek's name during the debate made it appear that the bracelet was just a political prop. However, now with news that the family doesn't even want their son's bracelet worn by the Senator, and are upset that Senator Obama uses Sergeant Jopek name in public, makes this appear to be an incredibly cold callous political move.

Friday, September 26, 2008

The Hot Air article The Democratic ACORN bailout reports that a clause in the write-up for the Senator Chris Dodd's rescue bill allocated money for the Housing Trust Fund and consequently the controversial group Acorn.

"TRANSFER OF A PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS.

1. DEPOSITS.Not less than 20 percent of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).2. USE OF DEPOSITS.Of the amount referred to in paragraph (1)1. 65 percent shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568); and2. 35 percent shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund established under section 1339 of that Act (12 U.S.C. 4569).

REMAINDER DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY.All amounts remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.

Profits? We’ll be lucky not to take a bath on the purchase of these toxic assets. If we get 70 cents on the dollar, that would be a success.

That being said, this section proves that the Democrats in Congress have learned nothing from this financial collapse. They still want to game the market to pick winners and losers by funding programs for unqualified and marginally-qualified borrowers to buy houses they may not be able to afford — and that’s the innocent explanation for this clause.

The real purpose of section D is to send more funds to La Raza and ACORN through housing welfare, via the slush fund of the HTF. They want to float their political efforts on behalf of Democrats with public money, which was always the purpose behind the HTF. They did the same thing in April in the first bailout bill, setting aside $100 million in “counseling” that went in large part to ACORN and La Raza, and at least in the former case, providing taxpayer funding for a group facing criminal charges in more than a dozen states for fraud.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

With the markets in turmoil and a bill and a bailout package up for debate in Congress, Senator McCain has suspended his campaign and returned to Washington to work on the bill. Last night prior to Senator McCain's decision to return to Washington ABC's George Stephanopoulos reported,

"If McCain doesn't come out for this, it's over," a Top House Republican tells ABC News.

A Democratic leadership source says that White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten has been told thatDemocratic votes will not be there if McCain votes no -- that there is no deal if McCain doesn't go along.

With the ball in Senator McCain's court, and concerns about the President's current proposal, Senator McCain is heading back to Washington. The debates and future campaign events are in limbo, as this bold decision has put a priority on the economic package.

The McCain Palin 2008 blog is sponsoring a petition protesting media bias with the support of groups/sites across the political spectrum. While many have witnessed a decisive pro-Obama slant in this news reporting during this election, this bias became glaringly apparent when Governor Palin was selected as the vice-presidential nominee. Whether it is an organization like the New York Times having to retract stories about Governor Palin because they printed rumor and not fact; networks investigating the children of the Governor; or network pundits questioning the Governor's 'mothering' skills, this over-the-top behavior and blatant bias is unacceptable. With over 1200 people having already signed we urge all readers to speak out against an irresponsible media by signing the following petition.

4. During primaries Obama tended to poll better than he performed except in blowout situations. McCain tended to perform better over even with polls.

5. The youth vote is fickle, the senior vote is not. While no one knows who will turn out in the end, stats say the person who has consistently voted over the years will show up on election day, while first time voters don't have a strong turn out record.

6. The debates are coming. Question and answer is McCain's strong suite, and not Obama's.

8. Energy - Winter's coming and as Dems stall on the energy bill, and people have to pay for heating oil, gasoline, and electricity; the 'do everything' approach of Republicans, already popular, will likely gain more traction as the days get shorter and colder.

9. McCain is a closer. Looking at the primaries as a guide McCain was behind almost the entire election except for election day. Obama, on the other hand, had a burst at the beginning, but had trouble closing out the race even when the numbers were decisively in his favor.

10. The VP picks. Palin brings excitement and energy, no one pays any attention to Biden except when he sticks his foot in his mouth.

'We also never wrote that Obama said class material about 'inappropriate touching' was the main purpose of the bill. Our article said that 'Obama has also said he does not support, ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’ and that Obama made it clear that at least one reason he supported the bill was that it would help teach young kids to recognize inappropriate behavior and pedophiles."

Factcheck also categorizes the ad as false because it states that it was Senator Obama’s ‘one achievement’ in education. It is true that Senator Obama did not achieve the passage of this legislation, and may be able to account for other education successes. Also, the previous article should have been more clear in stating that it was Senator Obama that stated the bill was about ‘inappropriate touching’ not FactCheck. However, there are still major problems in FactCheck’s story.

They state outright in their response. "Obama has also said he does not support, ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’." The ad does not state that Senator Obama does support ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’ that is solely Factcheck’s own interpretation. Yet this is repeated as proof that the ad is false as they later refute their own interpretation by saying, "But Obama has also said he does not support, 'explicit sex education to children in kindergarten." That’s fine, but it has nothing to do with the McCain ad.

Second, as they state in their rebuttal and in their original article, "Obama 'made it clear that at least one reason he supported the bill was that it would help teach young kids to recognize inappropriate behavior and pedophiles." Again, this has nothing to do with the McCain ad. Motive was never discussed in the ad and Factcheck misleads about the content of the ad by refutiating a claim not made in the ad.

Finally, Factcheck refutes the ad as having cherry picked quotes about Obama’s record. Well, welcome to politics. The statements are all verified, but FactCheck explains that those sources frequently did not have glowing reviews of McCain’s education plan either. Certainly that is fair to point out, but that does no make the ad false.

The one claim they are able to back up is the statement in the ad saying that this bill is Senator Obama’s ‘only accomplishment’ in education. They cite three ammendments to a bill that Senator Obama worked on that were aproved by unanimous consent. As Factcheck states, "Whether or not one considers any of these measures earth-shaking, they’re accomplishments nonetheless." Point taken.

I appreciate that FactCheck has responded to complaints about their article. However, I am still disappointed in the lack of actual fact checking within their article. Please read their response and email them at Editor@Factcheck.org if you agree that their article is still off base.

For clarity here are the basic complaints:

1. The statement, "Obama has also said he does not support, ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’." is an interpretation by Factcheck of the McCain ad, the ad itself does not claim that Senator Obama does support ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’

2. The reason Senator Obama supported this bill is irrelevant. The ad never states the reason for Senator Obama’s support, and this makes Factcheck’s article misleading.

3. Cherry picked quotes do not make an ad false. Certainly fair to point out context, but the quotes were not false, and they do not make the ad false.

4. If Factcheck wants to claim the article is false because it was not Senator Obama’s only educational accomplishment than that is a legitimate complaint. However, in that case the article needs extensive editing as that is the only argument where they have provided any real evidence.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

In the National Review article On Sex-Ed Ad, McCain Is Right, Byron York not only points out how the media bought the Obama campaign's rhetoric about the sex-ed ad, but they then added a large portion of their own self-righteous outrage.

“The kindergarten ad flat-out lies,” wrote the New York Times, arguing that “at most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators.” The Washington Post wrote that “McCain’s ‘Education’ Spot is Dishonest, Deceptive.” And in a column in The Hill, the influential blogger Josh Marshall called the sex-education spot “a rancid, race-baiting ad based on [a] lie. Willie Horton looks mild by comparison.”

Even factcheck.org presented the Obama campaign's view point, adding their own interpretation, "Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners." The ad is a series of sourced quotes which factcheck.org does not deny are legitimate. Insinuations are not a facts, and factcheck.org bases their critique of the ad off the insinuation that Obama supported 'explicit' sex education for kindergarteners. However, that is not a claim of that ad.

Factcheck and the media felt compelled to express outrage at this ad, but never relayed the substance of the bill. As Byron York reported, "The fact is, the bill’s intention was to mandate that issues like contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases be included in sex-education classes for children before the sixth grade, and as early as kindergarten. Obama’s defenders may howl, but the bill is what it is."

As noted in a previous article CNN continued to call the McCain ad a lie even after the National Review article was published. They clearly had not read the text of the bill, but expressed their outrage anyways. Please contact CNN at Election Center and/or Headline News to demand a retraction and an apology for falsely claiming the McCain campaign lied, and please urge others to do the same.

Also, contact factcheck.org at Editor@FactCheck.org and let them know they got his one wrong by interpreting the ad and judging intent, and not reporting on the content and purpose of the bill.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

In last nights CNN broadcast Cambell Brown, Jeffery Toobin, and others called the McCain campaign’s ad about Senator Obama’s support for a bill for ‘comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners’ a lie. One problem, they’re wrong. The text of the bill states,

"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."

They repeated the Obama campaign’s explanation that the bill was about ‘inappropriate touching’. Second problem, the bill is not about ‘inappropriate touching’. Byron York of National Review researched this bill and provides and an explantion along with the text of the bill in his article On Sex-Ed Ad, McCain is Right. However, when this article was brought up during last night’s CNN broadcast it was dismissed.

CNN didn’t do their homework and they should appologize and retract their statement that the McCain campaign lied.

After all the media claims that Senator McCain was irresponsible to pick Governor Palin as his VP, and all the articles questioning whether Palin had been adequately vetted, the irony is not just that Palin is a big hit, it's that no one has heard from Senator Biden since the convention (except when he told a man in a wheelchair to stand up, and stated that Hillary Clinton would have been a better VP pick.) Maybe the same questions should be asked of Senator Obama about his VP pick that were asked of Senator McCain. Here are a few to start with.

Do you agree with you VP pick that Senator Clinton would have been a better selection?

Does picking a VP that is known as the Senator of MBNA discredit your argument that about being a new style politics not tied to lobbyist (Biden's son)?

Senator Biden is known to be gaffe prone. Do you think Governor Palin could have gotten a pass by the media if she had told a handicapped man to stand up, or declared that another Republican would have made a better VP pick?

Does Senator Biden, one of the longest serving Senators, really represent change?

Do you really believe Senator Biden's experience is transferable to you?

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for Senator Biden to be at the top of the ticket, and you be in the two slot?

"Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter and member of the Democratic National Committee’s Platform Committee, will endorse John McCain for president on Wednesday, her spokesman tells CNN.

The announcement will take place at a news conference on Capitol Hill, just blocks away from the DNC headquarters. Forester will “campaign and help him through the election,” the spokesman said of her plans to help the Republican presidential nominee.

Forester was a major donor for Clinton earning her the title as a Hillraiser for helping to raise at least $100,000 for the New York Democratic senator’s failed presidential bid."

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

The media has been livid about the sex-ed ad that the McCain campaign ran saying that Obama supported 'comprehesive sexual education for kindegardeners'. They have reported the Obama campaign's statements that said that the bill had to do with teaching kids about 'inappropriate touching.' The National Review researched the bill and found out that the Obama campaign and the media are wrong. There is no reference to inappropriate touching, but their is to comprehensive sex education for kindegardeners. The bill states...

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.

Monday, September 15, 2008

CNN Headline, "Rove: McCain Went To Far". Now for the reality. Rove said both campaigns were pushing their ads too far. Don't believe me, listen to the tape...

CNN apparently suffers from selective hearing as Karl Rove thought the lipstick remark was inappropriate and then he said both campaigns have taken their ads one step too far. However, CNN is only interested in the part of the statement that is critical of McCain. 'The Most Trusted Name in News?' Really?CNN Spins Again

If one were to listen to the Democrats over the last couple weeks, you might conclude that Senator McCain is terribly ill just waiting for November or January to keel over. The line of attack is to tell voters that Sarah Palin will be president, and that she is not qualified for that job.

So for a moment lets ignore the morbid, and highly suspect premise of this argument. It's Palin v. Obama. It's a first term Governor v. a first term Senator. Both are short on foreign policy experience. They each have some experience, but not an extensive foreign policy record. Palin wins on executive experience; she's run a state, she has run a town; she's the commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard. What's particularly surprising is that Governor Palin has the edge of legislative achievements. This is an area that Senator Obama should win as his experience is almost completely in the legislative branch, yet he has no major pieces of legislation in his name in the U.S. or State Senate. It's not that he has no legislative experience but it is sparse and it is mainly on politically safe issues.

Palin's legislative accomplishments actually eclipse Obama's. She pushed through bipartisan ethics reform bill in Alaska. She passed a tax increase on oil company profits, and she enacted the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) to set up a natural gas pipeline in Alaska. She has taken on her own party in big ways by ousting two entrenched incumbants, resigning her post at the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission as a protest to 'lack of ethics', and opposed the reelection of Republicans Don Young and Ted Stevens because of ethics/corruption charges. Senator Obama does not have a bipartisan record, or a history of taking on his own party in any way.

So if Governor Palin were running for president I would have some doubts about her foreign policy experience, somewhat similar to those I have about Senator Obama's foreign policy experience. However, she's not running for president. Yes, it is possible that she could become president, but on the other hand Senator Obama would definitely be bringing a lack of foreign policy experience to the White House. If Governor Palin did have to take over the Presidency, her vice presidential experience would eclipse any experience Senator Obama now claims to have on foreign policy. The only way the Obama campaign has even the slightest opportunity to win the experience argument against Palin is to convince everyone McCain is on his last legs. Granted no one is guaranteed a particular life span, but this argument is a stretch and rather grim.

It is the team element of the Palin pick that makes McCain/Palin combination so strong. There is legislative and executive experience on the Republican ticket. There is a foreign policy expert, and there is an energy expert, they both have a history of working across party lines and battling corruption, there is military experience, there is 'beyond the beltway' experience. They both have a background and history of reform. On the Democratic side Obama chose an experienced Washington insider, who brings foreign policy experience, but dilutes the message of change. The match is awkward with the experienced candidate in the two slot and the novice at the top of the ticket. This has left the Obama campaign with the 'About to Die' argument leaving another ding in the 'politics of hope' mantra.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Friday, September 12, 2008

Obama and his campaign have been showing signs of having been rattled by the VP pick of Palin. However, there were signs before the VP selection that the Obama campaign could be rattled. First, the celebrity ad. Outrage, and cries of foul abounded over an ad that basically poked fun at Obama's celebrity and his legions of euphoric supporters. Second, Saddleback. Not the event itself, but the cries of cheating that came from the Obama campaign. It couldn't be that McCain outperformed Obama there must have been foul play. So the Obama campaign screams cheater because Senator McCain wasn't hermetically sealed in in a sound proof pod, or 'cone of silence'. Their reaction was both foolish, and a sign that even minor victories by the McCain campaign could rattle them. However, the pre-Palin kicker is that someone convinced Senator Obama to give a mediocre acceptance speech. What is the one area where Senator Obama has a decisive edge? Speech making; and he under-performed. How that happened should be studied in political science classes in years to come, because forfeiting a strength in any arena is flat crazy.

Then comes the VP picks. Obama doesn't want Clinton, and chooses a candidate to help him appear more experienced so he picks Biden. McCain supporters chuckle as Senator Biden is a legendary 'Gaffe Machine'. Everyone else yawns. Good guy, fairly safe pick, but no one really cares. Then it's McCain's turn. Everyone is predicting Romney or Pawlenty, both safe choices, but again not terribly exciting. The McCain campaign keeps the pick completely secret, and then Palin explodes on the scene. She gave a good opening speech, but there were a lot of questions about her still to be addressed. The Obama campaign immediately took a shot at her, but then retracted the statement as harsh and unnecessary. The media loses its mind. Certainly that's not the Obama camps fault, but their obvious Obama bias and hysterical reaction to Palin does not help their favorite candidate. Clumsily the Obama campaign chimed in with cracks about her experience as a small town mayor, and dismissed her experience as a sitting Governor. This opened the door for Palin to clock Obama on his community organizer experience during her acceptance speech, which was such a powerful speech that it made the media and Obama look foolish for their attacks.

Since then the Obama campaign has struggled to get its bearings. First, Obama acted horrified that Palin challenged his community organizer experience, when he had really set himself up. Then his campaign had a meltdown over Palin's comment that she had pulled the plug on the 'Bridge to No Where'. Instead of criticizing Palin's original support for a different version of the bridge, or questioning what that money should have been spent on after the project was dead, the Obama campaign instead freaked out. They called Palin a liar, they called the McCain/Palin ticket corrupt, yet in the end Palin did pull the plug on the 'Bridge to No Where' and the Obama campaign's over-reaction looked foolish and unstable. Then comes Senator Obama's 'Lipstick on a pig' comment. One can argue intent all day long, however, there is little argument that the comment was incredibly stupid. Particularly, since in the same day he made another comment about a 'stinking fish', and another campaign member also referenced lipstick in a less than flattering way. For someone who is typically graceful in his use of language, "The fierce urgency of now", "We are not red states or blue states, we are the United States", talking about lipstick on pigs after Palin made a lipstick joke during her speech is at best sloppy and out of character.

Today the fumbling continues. An ad criticizing Senator McCain's out of date attire from 1982, and challenging his apparent internet ineptitude has to be one of the weakest attack ads put out in years. Maybe that helps him somehow with the youth vote, but he already has the youth vote. Most people over the age of 30 know at some point in their lives they've worn a silly outfit, and/or had a bad hair day. As for lack of internet experience, who cares? It's an odd argument that I can't imagine helps the campaign. The Obama campaign has abandoned their 'new politics' argument for random and silly attacks. It's not just that they're struggling since the Palin pick and the convention, its that they're panicking. They're only down a few points in the polls, the real problem isn't the numbers it's that the McCain/Palin ticket has them completely flustered.

As new video surfaces of Senator McCain's release from a Vietnam prison of war it gives another opportunity to look at why this experience is relevant to his presidential bid. Aside from the military understanding and perspective that McCain's 22 years in the Navy provides, the compelling reason his P.O.W. experience matters, is that it shows his strength, resiliency, and triumphant spirit. What is riveting about Senator McCain's story is not how perfect he is, it is about how human he is. He doesn't tell a story of a hero, he tells a story of flawed human being who survived due to faith, friends, and country. What is compelling is not just that Senator McCain survived, or that he turned down preferential treatment, it's that he lived through an event that shattered him, recovered, then thrived after his release.

The theme of the Republican convention revolved around service and putting country before party. His biography seen though the prism of a campaign is sometimes thought to be self-aggrandizement. However, if one pays attention to the story he tells himself, it is actually about learning about humility, love, compassion, and forgiveness under the harshest of circumstances. His speech at the convention reflected not on his heroics, but on how others brought him back after he had been broken.

"Then I found myself falling toward the middle of a small lake in the city of Hanoi, with two broken arms, a broken leg, and an angry crowd waiting to greet me. I was dumped in a dark cell, and left to die. I didn’t feel so tough anymore. When they discovered my father was an admiral, they took me to a hospital. They couldn’t set my bones properly, so they just slapped a cast on me. When I didn’t get better, and was down to about a hundred pounds, they put me in a cell with two other Americans. I couldn’t do anything. I couldn’t even feed myself. They did it for me. I was beginning to learn the limits of my selfish independence. Those men saved my life.

I was in solitary confinement when my captors offered to release me. I knew why. If I went home, they would use it as propaganda to demoralize my fellow prisoners. Our Code said we could only go home in the order of our capture, and there were men who had been shot down before me. I thought about it, though. I wasn’t in great shape, and I missed everything about America. But I turned it down.

A lot of prisoners had it worse than I did. I’d been mistreated before, but not as badly as others. I always liked to strut a little after I’d been roughed up to show the other guys I was tough enough to take it. But after I turned down their offer, they worked me over harder than they ever had before. For a long time. And they broke me.

When they brought me back to my cell, I was hurt and ashamed, and I didn’t know how I could face my fellow prisoners. The good man in the cell next door, my friend, Bob Craner, saved me. Through taps on a wall he told me I had fought as hard as I could. No man can always stand alone. And then he told me to get back up and fight again for our country and for the men I had the honor to serve with. Because every day they fought for me.

I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else’s. I loved it not just for the many comforts of life here. I loved it for its decency; for its faith in the wisdom, justice and goodness of its people. I loved it because it was not just a place, but an idea, a cause worth fighting for. I was never the same again. I wasn’t my own man anymore. I was my country’s."

Thursday, September 11, 2008

The intensely personal attacks on Governor Palin now include attacks on her faith. Some misunderstand her faith, others as Slate did in a recent article, outright attack it. No expert myself on faith or religion, I asked my brother Greg who belongs to a church very similar to that of Governor Palin to clarify what it is and isn’t to be a fundamentalist Christian. Also, following his write up is a part of a write up from Mary McCurry a Roman Catholic who is deeply troubled by the manner in which Governor Palin’s faith has been attacked.

Greg Morrison - MNFirst of all, the author [from the Slate article] incorrectly correlates the term “fundamentalist” with the term “extremist”. To be a fundamentalist, simply means to believe in certain fundamentals. The fundamentals of Sarah Palin’s church can be found clearly on their website. They are few and fairly straightforward. They believe…

1. ...the Bible is the inspired and only infallible and authoritative Word of God.2. ...Jesus Christ is the only Divine Son of God.3. ...man is inherently sinful and in need of the grace of God.4 ...salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, apart from works.5. ...the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues is given to believers who ask for it.6. ...in Miracles of Divine healing in response to the prayer of faith.7. ...in the imminent return of Jesus for all Christians.

While individuals (even Christians) can argue as to whether or not this is a partial, complete, or extended list of fundamentals, the fact is that most Christian faiths believe in some if not all of the above tenets…

…most of the above statements of faith are very much within the “mainstream” of Christianity. Consequently while someone may be a Christian fundamentalist that in no way by itself means that they are by default an “extremist”.

Second, many of the freedoms we enjoy today are possible due to beliefs that are found in the Bible. God over and over again in scripture communicates to man that he has a choice to make (ex: Deut 30:19 I call Heaven and Earth to witness against you today: I place before you Life and Death, Blessing and Curse. Choose life so that you and your children will live.) This particular scripture is an example of the choice that God gives us. To paraphrase this passage, God is essentially saying the following. I’m calling everyone to say that I am giving you the freedom to make a choice. Here are your options; Life and Blessing or Death and Cursing. You choose. By the way I’d choose life if I were you. It is much better.

Are there some individuals who have perverted the truth? Of course. As in any segment of society there are those who do not take the time to learn and understand the truth…

…That being said, I have seen nothing so far that would suggest that Sarah Palin or her Church believe anything outside of the above basic fundamentals.

…It should be understood that to a person of Christian faith (even of the fundamentalist nature) science and God are not incongruous. After all from our perspective, God created both faith and science. Some of the theory’s that lead in our scientific circles may in fact be closer than many might think. For example the Big Bang Theory explains how the Universe came to be from virtual nothingness. To a fundamentalist Christian this is not a new revelation. After all, In the beginning…God said, Let there be light, and (BANG) there was light (Gen 1:1&3).

Mary McCurry - CA

…First, there is the wide dissemination of verifiably false stories of her claiming that the Iraq war and the Alaska pipeline are God's tasks. Then that she dared to pray in a Church of all places. I watched and listened to the YouTube clip 4 times where she was in her Church and offering support for her son and all our troops going to war. She prayed that God has a plan and that we be part of it. In other words by praying she was NOT stating what God's plan is, but asking God's guidance and strength that we rightly discern His Will and be empowered and protected to carry that out. That is even a step in the 12 Step programs. This is the same kind of praying that goes on in thousands of Churches of many different traditions.

Attacks on her Pentecostal faith and practices like speaking in tongues or rolling on the floor, etc -- It is not enough to just say that she doesn't do that - that's not the point. The point is that whether she does or doesn't millions of intelligent, educated and faith filled people do and there is nothing insane about that. Charismatic Catholics speak in tongues. Many Protestant groups do as well whether labeled Pentecostal or not. Sts Paul and Peter spoke in tongues along with the rest of the crowd at Pentecost. To attack this practice as making anyone unfit for public office is an attack on all religious practice or beliefs.

Monday, September 8, 2008

Reform: 1.the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc.: social reform; spelling reform.

Change: 1.to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone: to change one's name; to change one's opinion; to change the course of history.From Dictionary.com

There is a difference in the promise of a change versus the promise of a reform. First, a reform ticket acknowledges the good of the initial structure, and seeks to route out what has corrupted it. The promise of change simply says things will be different; possibly better, possibly worse, but definitely different. Change lacks specifics, reform seeks the goal of fixing the problems.

While reform includes some change, the basic promise differs, and this is evident in the two campaigns. The Obama campaign promises to be different than President Bush. Different how? In party affiliation, in political philosophy, a broad sweeping promise to not be 'him'. However, the McCain campaign says through reform they'll fix Washington. Washington is 'broken', but it is not inherently bad. The government structures of America are quite remarkable, however, with power comes corruption and the McCain/Palin ticket seeks to rectify problems of waste and corruption. The 'reform mantle' take a sliver of the 'change argument' and focus it on specifics. The idea of change is often appealing, but change can be good and it can be bad. Simply promising not to be 'that guy' is not concrete plan for what type of change one seeks.

Friday, September 5, 2008

From small 50-100 person town hall meetings in New Hampshire to accepting the Republican nomination center stage at the 18,000 seat Xcel Center makes for quite a story. Yet Senator McCain's life is full of compelling stories.

You know, I’ve been called a maverick; someone who marches to the beat of his own drum. Sometimes it’s meant as a compliment and sometimes it’s not. What it really means is I understand who I work for. I don’t work for a party. I don’t work for a special interest. I don’t work for myself. I work for you.

I’ve fought corruption, and it didn’t matter if the culprits were Democrats or Republicans. They violated their public trust, and had to be held accountable. I’ve fought big spenders in both parties, who waste your money on things you neither need nor want, while you struggle to buy groceries, fill your gas tank and make your mortgage payment. I’ve fought to get million dollar checks out of our elections. I’ve fought lobbyists who stole from Indian tribes. I fought crooked deals in the Pentagon. I fought tobacco companies and trial lawyers, drug companies and union bosses.

I fought for the right strategy and more troops in Iraq, when it wasn’t a popular thing to do. And when the pundits said my campaign was finished, I said I’d rather lose an election than see my country lose a war.

Thanks to the leadership of a brilliant general, David Petraeus, and the brave men and women he has the honor to command, that strategy succeeded and rescued us from a defeat that would have demoralized our military, risked a wider war and threatened the security of all Americans.

I don’t mind a good fight. For reasons known only to God, I’ve had quite a few tough ones in my life. But I learned an important lesson along the way. In the end, it matters less that you can fight. What you fight for is the real test.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

The test for Governor Palin was to see if she could perform on the big stage. Could she handle the pressure? Could she handle the criticism? Oh yeah! She can handle it. She just crushed her critics, and showed the media for what they are, glorified gossip hounds. While the media sulks, lets look at what was so amazing about this speech. She talked details, no sweeping generalities, but hard facts on current issues. She gave her background and explained how her experience as Governor and as mayor has prepared her for being VP. She addressed her family, and laid to rest the swirl of nasty remarks made over the weekend. She championed small town America, and echoed the theme of service and country. Finally, she destroyed the opposition. From nailing Harry Reed, to shooting down the Obama campaign's message of hope and change as an empty rhetoric that lacked action, to deflating the Obama campaign's attacks on her experience by flipping those remarks onto Obama himself. This speech had it all and Governeor Palin knocked it out of the park.

Tuesday's schedule was dedicated to theme of service, while also showing an inclusive spirit. The most touching moment of the night came with a long standing ovation for the sister and fellow Navy Seal's in the unit of deceased Seal Michael Monsoor. He was the first Navy Seal to die in Iraq and was awarded the Medal of Honor for his bravery and courageous actions during battle.

Another nice moment was the warm welcome for President H.W. Bush and Barbara Bush. The night included talks from Captain Leslie Smith who lost her foot because of a blood clot that almost cost her her life. Tommy Epinoza who started his address saying, "Good evening, my name is Tom Espinoza ... I'm CATHOLIC ... HISPANIC ... and a DEMOCRAT ... and I'm proud to call John McCain my friend." He talked about Senator McCain's service in the community, and how service is a way of life for Senator McCain and his family. He ended his talk stating, "Viva John McCain!" Wes Gullet with his daughter Nicki at his side talked about how Cindy McCain brought back two babies from Bangladesh both of whom were in desperate need of medical care. The McCain's adopted one of those babies, their daughter Bridgette; and the Gullet family adopted the other baby their daughter Nicki.

The featured speakers President Bush via video (with intro from Mrs. Bush on site), Fred Thompson, and Joe Lieberman made for a solid and interesting night. President Bush did a nice job discussing Senator McCain's military service. Also, he noted how Senator McCain's strong support for the surge and how important that was, as some in congress wanted to cut off funding for the troops. He repeated Senator McCain's statement that he would rather lose a campaign than lose a war, as Senator McCain's support for the surge clearly jeopardized his chances of winning the primaries.

Senators Thompson and Lieberman made for an interesting contrast. While Thompson presented the biography of Senator McCain, he also gave a sort of classic Republican talk. On the other hand, Senator Lieberman talked about his friendship with Senator McCain; how respected he is on both sides of the isle, and how he is clearly not the typical Republican, and is clearly his own man.

Several excellent videos have been shown at the convention. This one takes a historical look at service.

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Thanks to <a href="http://www.redstate.com">RedState</a> and <a href="http://www.googl.com">Google</a> bloggers had a blogger's brunch with Fred Thomspon. Here are some highlights.

Fred Thompson on the primary campaign. “What did you learn from your campaign? Well, the main thing I learned is never under estimate John McCain.”

Regarding foreign policy, “It isn’t the time to turn to the keys over to a fourteen year old in heavy traffic.”

Regarding Governor Palin “She’s the kind of public servant that we all say that we want. Someone who is an outsider not inside the beltway. The first thing every candidate does is try to convince everyone that they are not from inside the beltway. That’s what we want; someone who will stand up to authority right, someone that will work on a bipartisan basis will work with either side but will stand up to either side including members of their own party, but somebody who is successful who will take on the powers that be but will beat them. Well guess what that’s what you got. We know somebody else like that they’re running at the top of the ticket.”

Can you give your assessment of the media? (paraphrased)“Well, it’s been generally poor up till now, and now it is abysmal.”

Day one at the convention was nicely done. Party business was taken care of and the day wrapped up with an address from Mrs. Bush then Mrs. McCain about giving to gulf coast charities. A video played on all the Republican Gulf Coast governors addressing the hurricane, and thanking people for their prayers and contributions.

The set up for the convention is impressive. The presentation is more classic than flashy. There are sections for delegates, for radio, for tv networks, along with a variety of other media subgroups. A huge hat tip to security in both planning and execution. There were protests, some peaceful, some no so much, and security made things run smoothly. Frankly, anyone involved with the convention planning deserves some recognition, as the scale of the event, and the range of participants is emmense. While there was no earth-shattering events on day one, it certainly was interesting to see.

Monday, September 1, 2008

Senator McCain and the RNC have decided to scale back Monday's convention activities, and focus on fund raising efforts for charities in the Gulf States due to Hurricane Gustav. They have consulted with the Gulf State Governors about what charities to support. Governor Bobby Jindal recommended Aid Matrix. Comfort packages will be assembled and sent to the affected region with the help of FedEx and Target. A charter plane returned affected delegates back to the region, and will return them to Minnesota circumstances permitting. The RNC is taking a wait and see approach to the convention scheduling. As they learn more about the effects of Hurricane Gustav they will be able to confirm more of their convention plans.

Today's schedule consists of basic convention business. Laura Bush will introduce a video to the delegates, and Cindy McCain will also briefly address the delegates. Governor Palin will be in town, but has no public schedule. Speeches by President Bush, and Vice President Cheney have been canceled as they deal with the effects of the hurricane.